Friday, January 18, 2013

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of
American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make
sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17%
disagree, while another 18% are not sure.

The problem is that those who want a government monopoly on guns are constantly in everyone's face about it, so they leave the false impression that they are more numerous than they are. Remember, the left is essentially rhetorical and feminine in its tactics, so to them, silence equals consent. Don't ever keep your mouth shut when someone starts talking about "the need to do something" or making anti-Second Amendment cracks.

Remember Breitbart's advice. Punch back twice as hard. If they try to blame freedom advocates for Sandy Hook, blame them for Stalin. If they compare the US firearms homicide rate to Europe, compare it to Latin America and ask them why they want to leave single black women living in the city unarmed and vulnerable to predators.

The liberals are playing the emotional card on this. Even that card has no stats to back it up. I play their game for a bit, then remind them that this was intended to prevent tyranny in the US. The common response is that we're all too lazy, too fat, and don't have the ability to take on the military.

The fight is boring to me because they've lost creativity in this battle. They don't have anything that we haven't heard and can be easily dispelled with simple logic. And then we remember that this right shall not be infringed.

You can't reason with a bunch of feminist wimps who get their information from the latest HuffPo or whatever fagrag they now use for their misinformation. They are robots. Wimpy robots.

I agree. Kick them where it counts, and don't worry about leaving them to feel stupid. Maybe a few of them will come around. I'm not holding my breath.

It baffles me that anyone living in the U.S. who lives even remotely near a large city that has a ghetto never think ghettos and gangs are what make up the statistics of gun violence. American whitey gun violence statistics compare with European whitey statistics, it is the brown and black populations that skew the data.

I always see people shut up once the elephant in the room is revealed. They have no way to defend against it except a pitiful accusation of racism, and every circle I've traveled in, when you hear someone say racist it is clear they've lost it emotionally and are no longer arguing. I am thankful to Vox for posting the graphs he had earlier on the gun crime statistics broken down by race. I think those posts should be linked under Voxiversity.

This post is absolutely on topic. We've got big trouble coming and it is coming by design.

When Barack Obama first announced his candidacy, I signed up to receive his newsletters. My motive was to get a glimpse of what they were about that might not be covered fully in the media. This morning I received an e-mail announcing the formation of a new mass movement. The goal is to form a mass movement that operates outside the political environment to create public support for the Obama agenda. This is straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", a classic neo-Marxist method of mobilizing the mass public. It is Barack Hussein Obama channeling Hugo Chavez to create a cult of personality and generate public hatred for the opposition among an increasingly radicalized underclass of the unemployed, the poor and the uneducated. Given this development, even Obama's economic policies make a twisted sort of sense. His goal is to expand the base of disaffected angry people, making them available for mobilization as well. This must be stopped, strangled in the womb.

The video may be found at https://my.barackobama.com/page/share/neworganization.

Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal democrats."

I would say all the mass shooters have been leftists. Where is the media on this? Has anybody noticed this? It is liberal society that produces these monsters, the ACLU protects their "rights" and schools produce them.

When arguing with liberals, point out that Columbine happened during the Clinton gun ban. Ask the liberal how many lives a 10 round magazine rule will save (are the 2nd graders trained to rush the shooter during mag changes?). Ask them if 10 deaths are OK, but 11 aren't. Take the offense, rock them back on their heels and step on their toes.

Tad, The NYT isn't to be trusted and surveys can use weasel words/questions to achieve the results they want. I'd guess the recent surveys you reference ask vague questions like "Should children be safe in school?" and when answered with the affirmative, it's interpreted as a wish for more gun laws.

Ignore the polls, look at the flood of dollars, recent purchases show that Americans want more guns.

I am weeping with laughter and hoping that my tears don't somehow dissolve Tad's intricate bioarchitecture of lipoproteins that have developed over the years to compensate for his total lack of backbone or brains.

Decidedly discouraged now: You like liberty? You're a terrorist. This from West Point.

Oklahoma City bombing, Branch Davidians, and Ruby Ridge. Before 9/11 far-right extremists were responsible for most of the major news grabbing terrorist action of the 90s. Now right wing fanatics don't really compare to Islamic fanatics in terms of dedication and resolve but they can still be a threat.

"Oklahoma City bombing, Branch Davidians, and Ruby Ridge. Before 9/11 far-right extremists were responsible for most of the major news grabbing terrorist action of the 90s."

WACO and Ruby Ridge were federal attacks on US citizens you blithering idiot. David Koresh was a licensed Class III weapons dealer. He was selling guns legally. The atf raid was over a 300 dollar tax stamp that they thought he hadn't paid... turns out he actually did.

There were no charges brought against anyone at Ruby Ridge. ok well... except for some of the federals that opened fire for no damned reason.

I have read everything I have been able to find on Holms, and had not seen his voter registration information. He did have a serious problem with the Fed, (like Athe rizona shooter), so that would be an interesting mix of politics.

I'm wondering at what point the British are going to have enough of this stupid bullshit? I'm not even British and I am pissed. This is why you need guns.

"If you don't like alcohol, you are really not going to like this..."

As I whip out my gun.

Reminds me of Muslim fighters in Mali, as they hide in the cities amongst normal residents. Firebomb the entire city. Trust me, they'll get the message. You'll only need to do it a couple of times. "Hmmmmm I smell pork cooking. That is unislamic!" they'll all scream with much throaty vigor.

... "using the bayonet." In the 18th and 19th century, a charge with cold arms- the bayonet, lance, or sabre- could be carried home only against demoralized, poorly-trained, or cowardly troops. No commander in his right mind would order a rush, for example, against a steady line or square of Wellington's Redcoats. But we can imagine Marshal Suvorov looking at an equivocating, evading, double-talking mass and yelling with delight, "Cossack bait!" or "Give 'em the cold steel!"

In the political arena, we are of course talking about people in weak, indefensible, or intellectually dishonest positions: the Feinsteins, Kennedys, Rowans, and Clintons. In such a case, there is no need to be polite, respectful, or even circumspect; one can and should roll right over them.

The Political Equivalent of the Bayonet------------------------------------------When confronted with an unsteady, evading, dodging, equivocating, doubletalking, and hypocritical Feinstein, Kennedy, Rowan, Moseley-Braun, or Clinton, for example...

When 'shock value' is appropriate, e.g. when engaged in a debate, to shake the opponent (and get the audience's attention) with unpleasant facts, as opposed to an ad hominem attack"

Nate: WACO and Ruby Ridge were federal attacks on US citizens you blithering idiot. David Koresh was a licensed Class III weapons dealer. He was selling guns legally. The atf raid was over a 300 dollar tax stamp that they thought he hadn't paid... turns out he actually did.

There were no charges brought against anyone at Ruby Ridge. ok well... except for some of the federals that opened fire for no damned reason.

That is what Timothy McVeigh thought too and the reason he blew up the OKC building on the anniversary of the Branch Davidian compound burning. Strike a blow for freedom by killing 19 little kids at day care along with a hundred other people.

Some of the arguments ya'll are pushing would backfire. Especially this one:

"Ask the liberal how many lives a 10 round magazine rule will save (are the 2nd graders trained to rush the shooter during mag changes?). Ask them if 10 deaths are OK, but 11 aren't. Take the offense, rock them back on their heels and step on their toes."

This would only embolden the "Ban them all instantly" subsection of gun control, and if the "Let's take this one step at a time" crowd gets their first initiative pushed through, they'll use that as a reason to add another restriction.

Then one day Americans will wake up with their dicks in their hands wondering "Why?".

The US Air Forces top bomb damage assessment expert will point out proof that the structure of the Murrah had contact explosives on it after explaining how, if the fertilizer bomb had the detonator in the middle of a spherical (hard to achieve in barrels) configuration, it might have broken the windows.

McVeigh, who'd tell you that Science was his religion, was not allowed in the Michigan Militia because he supported the Clinton Health Care Plan.

Coulda been an Iraqi attack, but it served the current administration all to well. If it's going to be pinned on someone, athiest democrats seem to be tied with Iraqi operatives (the swarthy John Doe #2), but either way, it's kinda hard to pin in anyone clinging to their guns & bibles.

The Oklahoma City bombing still fascinates me. It's clear that the bomber was couldn't get laid and decided to something violent to attract a mate. The really screwy thing with the case is this: The governmental and specifically our current attorney general Eric Holder had him under surveillance.

They then left him alone/lost track of him for 8 months while he tested and perfected his detonator. His neighbors repeatedly called the cops about him blowing things up with his test detonators but the cops didn't bother to investigate.

It seems that terrorism primarily succeeds though the incompetence/ or forbearance of our leaders. When you consider that everyone who failed to stop 911 and Oklahoma city were promoted for their failures and that their political and economic futures are enhanced by such attacks why wouldn't they do everything to encourage such attacks? Incentives matter.

"Oklahoma City bombing, Branch Davidians, and Ruby Ridge. Before 9/11 far-right extremists were responsible for most of the major news grabbing terrorist action of the 90s. Now right wing fanatics don't really compare to Islamic fanatics in terms of dedication and resolve but they can still be a threat."

Let's get the facts straight. The Branch Davidians were a religious group. Randy Weaver (Ruby Ridge) was a shade-tree gunsmith who believed that the apocalypse was imminent.

They were religious kooks, by most people's standards, but they weren't "far-right extremists" or "right wing fanatics." And it was the federal government that attacked them, not the other way around.

Timothy McVeigh claimed that the Oklahoma City bombing was was revenge for "what the U.S. government did at Waco [Branch Davidians] and Ruby Ridge."

I didn't know anything about the OKC bombing either, and I was challend on it by, I think Nate.

I did my own research, and worked on the details of the math a little, and also had some concerns. (A few things that were originally claimed here turned out to be a little inaccurate, distances/weights/etc). The gist of what was intimated was that the bomb blast that occured could not have been caused by the bomb that was built by the convicted bombers.

I couldn't come to a resolution on my own, but I did request the entire case file via FOIA to the DOJ.

DCM: They were religious kooks, by most people's standards, but they weren't "far-right extremists" or "right wing fanatics."

If they weren't far-right extremists who are? I know most of you here want to imagine that your views are some how centrist and popular and not only held by a disenfranchised minority but they aren't. Timmothy McVeigh, David Koresh, and Randy Weaver are all right wing fanatics and any attempts to deny that are just examples of the "no true Scotsman" or "moving goalpost" fallicies VD is so fond of accusing others of.

Randy Weaver was one of four children born to Clarence and Wilma Weaver, a farming couple from Villisca, Iowa. The Weavers were deeply religious and had difficulty finding a denomination that matched their views; hence, they often moved around among Evangelical, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches. Weaver earned decent grades in school and played baseball and football in high school. He professed his faith in Jesus Christ at age 11, however at a 2007 news conference for Edward and Elaine Brown he stated : "I ain't afraid of dying no more. I'm curious about the afterlife. And I'm an atheist."

"That is what Timothy McVeigh thought too and the reason he blew up the OKC building on the anniversary of the Branch Davidian compound burning. Strike a blow for freedom by killing 19 little kids at day care along with a hundred other people."

How odd it must be to live in a world where a fertilizer bomb 100 feet away can blowup a building made to withstand military bombs.

Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia: Yes, someone claiming to be an atheist sure enough fits the the new true Scotsman fallacy.

If you had actually read the article he had posted a link to instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction you would of seen this

The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.”

The center — part of the institution where men and women are molded into Army officers — posted the report Tuesday. It lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

Even if you can call Weaver and Koresh right wingers what of it? What'd they do precisely that makes them evil terrorists? Fall into ill-repute with the federal government? Given the people who are on good terms with the feds I'd call that a mark of quality.

A little weird perhaps, but neither had done anything that justified any action by any authority, much less multi-million dollar military-style assaults by federal murder-teams.

McVeigh is hard to figure, but the guy just reeks of patsy/provocateur. If that was the case then what his ideology was (if he had any) is pretty irrelevant.

Nate:"How odd it must be to live in a world where a fertilizer bomb 100 feet away can blowup a building made to withstand military bombs."

I was there several weeks after and never talked about it. It was the biggest bullshit story a physicist was ever told. That is all I will say, My best friends wife's relative was killed over it, he was the first doctor on the scene doing triage. He saw it all and they killed him.

a) a Christian fellow using scripture to debate an atheist who holds the Holy Bible in contempt.

b) an NRA member using NRA poll results to debate a leftist, NRA scorning, gun control advocate.

c) a gun control advocate using NYT poll results to try to debate a gun owning, NYT scorning, NRA member.

Thats an easy answer given NYT's Nate Silvers utter demolishing of conservative presidential polling and models. I would of thought the right would of learned something about biased polls from that debacle.

Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia: Weaver is not a "religious kook" as atheist is not typicaly defined in that manner.

Are you talking to me or DCM? Because DCM was the one who called him a "religious kook" I just called him a right wing fanatic. Like my quote above stated anti-government sentiment, racism, and fundamentalism are related but not necessarily found in each individual hence the broad term "far-right".

Bye the way Nate the police officer he was working with was killed as well, and tortured before they killed him. You can find his name (The Doctor) but you can't find how he was killed, I know exactly what they did.

Realized I was too young at the time to know the details of Ruby Ridge and decided to look it up. What a sickening event. And people think the government can't come after them? Please. All that over stupid charges and government overstep.

Given how badly Rasmussen fucked up the polling leading up to the election, there is plenty of reason to cast doubt on these results. OTOH, since they said 2/3 of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment is a safeguard against tyranny, I'm willing to say that holds true for at least 50% of the country.

Have you considered for a single moment that if the government can infringe on your "right to keep and bear arms," that they can also infringe on your "right to life and liberty?"

I know that there are limits that are Constitutional that may be placed on our 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights. You make it sound as though these right come with no limits at all. That's crazy talk.

"My life and Liberty"? Liberty to do what, Cinco? We have never had the liberty to do whatever we please.

It baffles me that anyone living in the U.S. who lives even remotely near a large city that has a ghetto never think ghettos and gangs are what make up the statistics of gun violence. American whitey gun violence statistics compare with European whitey statistics, it is the brown and black populations that skew the data.

In 1991 during the Gulf War the media promoted the idea that blacks served in disproportionate numbers in combat, and thus paid a higher price in war. This was done as a way to berate the government to enact more policies seen as beneficial to the black community as payback for greedy America's desire to use poor minorities as cannon fodder in our wars.

However, images from that war and the current wars have become so prevalent that most people realize combat units are very white and elite units are in fact overwhelmingly white. In fact certain units that receive public fame, like the SEALs, are being pressured to diversify lest the public become too fond of their current composition.

Likewise, the media is trying to use the relatively high violent crime rate of America versus the low rates of Canada and the EU as a way to disarm the dreaded rednecks. However, by continually comparing us to those nations, it must come out, as it has already begun to do, that those nations have drastically different demographics. The fact that white America has a comparable violent crime rate to the effeminate EU and Canada is going to become more widely known in the coming months. This should have a positive impact on the pro 2A side of the debate.

And if that shifts the debate from the need to disarm rednecks to the need to disarm violent NAMs, the left might not be able to continue arguing since it would only serve to highlight the deficiencies of their pet group.

Yes, if via the political process automatic weapons were made legal I'd accept it.

They were until the tommy-gun ban put automatic weapons solely in the hands of the mob. So basically, you are saying that you are for any law that exists via the political process, and if it is overturned via the political process, you change your mind and reject it. Whatever the law is, even if it changes to its opposite, you are good with whatever your political betters think.

--55% of American Adults think there should be a ban on the purchase of semi-automatic and assault-type weapons.

Tad,

Before I put too much credence into that portion of the poll, I would like to see how many Americans even know what an automatic, semi-automatic, or assault weapon are.

It's sort of like asking Americans if they support bombing Serbia over Kosovo when over half of those surveyed a) can't locate Serbia on a map, and b) have never heard of Kosovo prior to being asked about it by the pollster.

do you believe that all Americans have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons?

Yes. A thousand times yes. In fact, if I could have a mere three nukes, one for each branch of government (if necessary, of course. It isn't like I've got a hair trigger or anything) I would be willing to consider not fully opposing legislation that requires a 15-minute waiting period on guns that look like they are from a movie.

It would be interesting to track gun violence and socioeconomic status.

Tad, I would like to see this for the white community. In America we have a large wealth gap among whites. Urban coastal whites are extremely wealthy and many rural whites live below the poverty line.

I am no expert on Europe, but I think that in places like Norway, Switzerland and Finland, the whites are all pretty close in socioeconomic status. There is not the extreme gap that exists here.

Yet, if the statistics are true, then white America, with its stratified wealth gap, has similar violent crime to more egalitarian places in Northern Europe. If this is true, it would only make our NAMs look even worse.

"I think we get the best argument for this in Scalia's "Heller" decision."

The Heller decision did not overturn U.S. v. Miller, which held that individuals have the right to bear military weapons in no uncertain terms. The continued enforcement of the NFA is contrary to the court's decision in U.S. v. Miller.

There used to be privatly held cannons, warships, and armored trails (possibly some tanks, but they were kind of hard to come by). The justification was the 2nd amendment.

If I say "ok, the State can keep the nukes", would you support me having an Abrahms tank (with main gun)? After all, crew served, portable artillery were definitly in private hands after the signging of the Constitution. Even early crew severed machine guns.

Tad doesn't understand what a Right is. He's probably about to say "you don't have the right to yell fire in a theater" or some other non-sense tripe. That or quote some court case, as if a lawyer turned politician were the authority on what our rights are.

Life Liberty and Property Tad, where do you draw a legitimate "limit" on our these rights? How do you put a limit on "do not kill others" "do not tell others what to do" and "do not take other people's stuff". I KNOW it's done, but how do you justify it?

"I want to be able to buy hand grenades at Wal-Mart. Or get a TOW missile mounted on top of my SUV. Would make getting through traffic easier."

You confusion owning a weapon with using it to commit violence. You'd know more have people using TOW missles on traffic jams than you have people randomly shooting the driver ahead of them. Both are illegal and in a more civilized world would be liable to get you shot long before the police get there to arrest you.

And who'd want a TOW missile anyway? Most people can't afford to shoot a .50 BMG... the $/rd of a TOW missile would be a serious problem.

It turned out that the worthless Zimbabwe Dollar wasn't sufficient to keep Mugabe's police chiefs and generals loyal. He had to turn to China for real currency. Somehow, I don't think China has the cash to pay for dealing with an American civil war.

And show me where the 2nd amendment stipulates "weapon of the common soldier".

IIRC, and this is from memory, it's inferred from writing about it. That a member of the Militia was to supply his own kit and weapon of the times.

Now it's possible someone might have their own navel equal vessel. Pretty rare though as to the population. Now days that would like having your own F-18. Feel free. Personally I couldn't afford one, or even pay for the gas just to get it to altitude.

I do see F-18s, grenades, Stingers, etc as being pretty common, each operable by a single person.

They were until the tommy-gun ban put automatic weapons solely in the hands of the mob. So basically, you are saying that you are for any law that exists via the political process, and if it is overturned via the political process, you change your mind and reject it. Whatever the law is, even if it changes to its opposite, you are good with whatever your political betters think.

You misunderstand.

If a law is passed and implemented via a legitimate political process, then I recognize it as the law of the land and as legitimate. However, that doesn't mean I support (agree with) it. That would be the case with laws allowing the possession of automatic weapons as well as laws that ban abortion, both of which i would not support and likely help to overturn.

Quite true. Remember that in the Miller decision the court said that they "had no knowledge" of the particular shotgun being used by the military. Had they known how wrong they were they certainly wouldn't have upheld it's banning.

@mina In the political arena, we are of course talking about people in weak, indefensible, or intellectually dishonest positions: the Feinsteins, Kennedys, Rowans, and Clintons. In such a case, there is no need to be polite, respectful, or even circumspect; one can and should roll right over them.

While I agree, the focus on democrats is counter-productive as it allows the GOP members of Codevilla's Ruling Class a free pass. To this list we should add "Graham, McCain, Boehner, Cantor, The National Review, WSJ, Peggy Noonan...."

Jake: You confusion owning a weapon with using it to commit violence. You'd know more have people using TOW missles on traffic jams than you have people randomly shooting the driver ahead of them. Both are illegal and in a more civilized world would be liable to get you shot long before the police get there to arrest you.

Road rage is a common occurence. And I can just imagine how other drivers returning fire on the rager would turn out. It would be like Mad Max. Some of you are so out of touch with reality its scary.

Never mind nukes, what about private drones? I can hardly wait until the muzzies figure out you could send a drone over the WhiteHouse and fire an Agent Orange bomb to turn the Rose Garden into a brown wasteland, (which seems to be their special agricultural talent).

Afterwards, they could demand a minature mosque (sort of like a garden gnome) be built on the wasteage to mollify their feelings.

Presidents could meet the press in a toxic wasteland with a cute little mosque in it.

Ah, there's Q, after having ran away from Vox and Stickwick's questions several posts ago.

I get tired of reading this stuff after a while and the comment system is far from ideal in maintaining long discussions. But I'll answer whatever they were asking if you post them. In fact I'll phrase it in the form of a question What did VD and Stickwick ask that I did not answer? so that in the future I'll be able to accuse you of not respecting the rules of the blog if you don't respond.

Since the ilk can't get the best of Tad, do you think Vox is staying away because he doesn't want to be seen as equally impotent?

You obviously have no idea what is going on. On the internet, you can slam an idiot all day long and they can still blather. If it was happening in reality, Tad would be a bloody toothless pulp sucking Hillbilly dick on an ill-fated canoe trip.

Yes, we know. I expect most here are aware of Alinskyism (which is just Stalinism slightly updated). In a sense, D'Won and his army of Tads are the lesser enemy though. They carry their hammer and sickle more-or-less openly. It's all those nice folks running the Republican party, and their counterparts in the military, the church, etc. who are the gravest danger of all. They will sell us all out for much less than the proverbial 30 pieces of silver. The vast idiocracy out there hasn't the slightest clue. Even though dh is a despicable leftist, he's correct in pointing out that it's a bit laughable to read folks talking about armed revolution when they can't even pull their fat asses away from the television, or take their own flesh and blood out of the government indoctrination centers.

Since the ilk can't get the best of Tad, do you think Vox is staying away because he doesn't want to be seen as equally impotent?

Or he could just ban him... Tad is a "tar-baby." The more you fight it, the worse it gets. Look it up.

Never mind nukes, what about private drones? I can hardly wait until the muzzies figure out you could send a drone over the WhiteHouse and fire an Agent Orange bomb to turn the Rose Garden into a brown wasteland, (which seems to be their special agricultural talent).

Watching that Malian conflict is just pissing me off. They've taken half the country now and are threatening the capital of Bamako. The French finally retook Konna and Diabaly though. How much more of this are we going to take? The Muslims just threatened to attack France in retaliation. I hope that they do.

The French can be extremely ruthless when protecting France or its former francophone colonies (see also French Algeria).

"Bye the way Nate the police officer he was working with was killed as well, and tortured before they killed him. You can find his name (The Doctor) but you can't find how he was killed, I know exactly what they did."

OKC is the primary example of just how stupid the American electorate is... and how complicit journalists are.

The governor of OKC is on live news talking about the bombs they recovered from inside the building while they are showing them being wheeled out on carts by the bomb squad... and the next day... there suddenly were no bombs inside..it was a truck of fertilizer.

Public safety and order. It's a perfectly reasonable justification. If you want widespread ownership of guns then write an amendment that doesn't involve an "individual right". If you say that individuals have a right to bear arms, period, then that means that they have a right to own nukes. If you say they have a right barring public safety then the government is just going to argue rational basis for confiscating guns.

But if the right is a collective one to overthrow tyrants then you bypass the question of public safety altogether. Frankly, I'm surprised that two thirds polled see this.

"What is the ilk consensus for a .300 win mag rifle. And what scope would go with it?"

What are going to do with it? Unless you're trying to drop a Polar Bear or Elephant at 1000 yards, it's way overkill for just about anything else.

Some of the various 6.5mm (.264 caliber) wonder rounds will have less wind drift and elevation drop at 1000 yards and still deliver enough foot pounds to drop moderately sized game, with less stress on your shoulder and nervous system.

"Unless he can demonstrate he's wrong, he can't also ban him without appearing weak."

If being wrong got one banned... no one would ever be commenting here. We've all been wrong about something at one time or another.

One gets banned by breaking the rules... there are a couple of rules Tad ignores with impunity... so there are very good reasons to ban him. The fact that Vox doesn't indicates that Vox believes Tad's stupidity helps the cause.

Rule of thumb is spend as much on your scope as the rifle, but I think Redfield and Burris both offer good glass for the $$, then Leopold, after that your in rediculous I have more money than I know what to do with territory if you ask me.

"what are going to do with it? Unless you're trying to drop a Polar Bear or Elephant at 1000 yards, it's way overkill for just about anything else."?Non-sense. Maybe he has no interest in actually chasing the deer? He would just as soon knock it on its ass in such a fashion that it never gets up.

he's correct in pointing out that it's a bit laughable to read folks talking about armed revolution when they can't even pull their fat asses away from the television, or take their own flesh and blood out of the government indoctrination centers.

I hear right wingers bitch all the time about the media, hollywood, etc. being bastions of marxists out to do harm to America, yet how many still pay for subscription television and fork over bucks to go to the movies? They can't even refrain from buying the goods of their supposed enemy. Revolution talk is a f**king joke.

.300 Win Mag...No one ever got fired for buying a Winchester Model 70, Weatherby Mk V or a Remington 700 chambered in that caliber. There are so many scope choices as well. I like the Hawke 4-12x with a 50mm adjustable objective. With an illuminated red/green reticle that scope is 130.00 on Amazon. If you have piles of cash to spend you can get a Nightforce or US Optics scope. With that big pile of cash you can also get a Desert Arms in .300 win mag.

I think we get the best argument for this in Scalia's "Heller" decision

Since people are mentioning the Heller case, I hope they realize it only went their way by a 5-4 margin. Now Obama has 4 years and Hillary is probably in the on deck circle for another 4 to 8. What happens when one of the 5 in the majority retires?

The easiest path to restricting the 2nd Amendment is going to come when the left gets that magical 5th vote on the Supreme Court. A new case will appear and the Court will now decide the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right.

This is a much easier and plausible path to gun control than any executive order or attempt to change the laws through Congress. Yet no one seems to be concerned.

Here in Texas most deer hunting involves shooting a relatively small white tail at about 50 yds. At that range even a f'n lowly 55gr 5.56 delivers almost 1200 foot pounds, and a 150 gr win 270 has over 2400 foot pounds. If it don't drop from that, you didn't make a good shot.

Now if you're doing real tracking of larger game at several hundred yards distance, then yeah, maybe I'd be concerned about the deer running off.

however....

At 1000 yards the difference between .308 and .300 wmag is 1220 vs 1404 foot lbs. What kind of shot on what are you taking that 200 less flbs is going to be the difference between it dropping or not?

Plus you gotta' take all those shots sighting in the scope, and working up rounds or finding what commercial ammo works best for your barrel, and while I usually consider all that recreational fun, not so much with .300 win mag.

Then again Nate drinks Bourbon, so maybe I'm just not man enough for his style shooting either..heh.....

"At 1000 yards the difference between .308 and .300 wmag is 1220 vs 1404 foot lbs. What kind of shot on what are you taking that 200 less flbs is going to be the difference between it dropping or not?"

This has to be an epic typo. At 1000 yards the .308 with a 150 grain bt is barely over 350 foot pounds.

There is a HUGE difference between the two... all along the flight path. I have .308s. I have 300 win mags. A deer hit right with a .308 at 100 yards or 50 yards... is still going to run. Where as the .300 at 100 yards literally throws them on the ground... they flop a little bit... and die right there on the spot.

That's awfully convenient. I know people shoot the .308 to 1000 yards... but the fact is its just not practical. For crying out loud you're talking about measuring bullet drop in FEET... not inches.

Ok... first... I would be very careful about the Tikka. Fact is they are known to have issues with the safety. There were recalls because the trigger could be adjusted down... and there was a flaw in the mechanism where just clicking the safety off would cause the trigger to break and the weapon to fire.

For that money... I would get a CZ550... and with that goal in mind I would be looking at a .270... or even a varmint rifle in 17hmr or .22mag. Cheap to shoot. Fun to shoot. throw a good nikon scope on it.

With any rifle round that starts off going supersonic, the distance at which the bullet velocity drops to the speed of sound tends to be about the maximum range at which any kind of consistent accuracy can be obtained.

1000 yards is pushing a .308 beyond its practical limit. At that range the bullet is unstable and has probably departed substantially from its original trajectory. However, the .300 Win Mag with the right bullet is still supersonic at that range. None of them have much energy left, though. For something that far out, if you're interesting in doing more than punching through paper, you really need a 50 BMG or maybe something exotic like a .338 or .416 Barrett.

You know damn well that the underlying question is "what makes a government legitimate". That is the first question of government, and you are dodging it. Under what conditions would a people consider a government legitimate? Answer the question you dishonest little weasel.

But back to the more common, oh, 100yd range for the same rounds, yeah, 700lbs difference, but I'm a bit skeptical about any deer in NA not dropping from 2000 flbs delivered to the shoulder through the chest cavity (which the lowly .308 does). Not saying it's not possible, I'm just skeptical you're comparing the same quality shot placement in each case.

And I've heard white tail deer drop with good shot placement and much lower powered rounds than .308.

But admitedly, this is about 1/2 theory for me. I've done lots of long range target shooting, never hunted deer, so I'm depending on stories my friends who have tell me.

Besides I'd rather discuss shooting or drinking with Nate than feed trolls tonight.

"But back to the more common, oh, 100yd range for the same rounds, yeah, 700lbs difference, but I'm a bit skeptical about any deer in NA not dropping from 2000 flbs delivered to the shoulder through the chest cavity (which the lowly .308 does)."

Perhaps you have those little west virginia type white tails up there. I know down here on the coast the deer are tiny compared to what we shot in TN.

OKC is the primary example of just how stupid the American electorate is... and how complicit journalists are.

The governor of OKC is on live news talking about the bombs they recovered from inside the building while they are showing them being wheeled out on carts by the bomb squad... and the next day... there suddenly were no bombs inside..it was a truck of fertilizer.

It seems that the story has changed radically after both recent shootings as well.

Let's hope the courts decide that the DoJ has to respond to the FOIA request, although they could still heavily redact it.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

It has occurred to me that because the Federal Data I'm looking at is with a 24" barrel and loads that may not be considered ideal for hunting, results will vary. So, if you're using a shorter barrel with a hunting round, I can see where the .300 win mag likely has a practical advantage in regards to a one shot drop under similar circumstances.

There are some .308 and even .260 rem loads that are still supersonic ( > 1100fps) at 1000 yds according to Federal. These are of course their premium, target loads, with relatively high bullet B.C, which apparently can make a big difference.

I think I'll leave the hunting to others and stick with chasing that perfect group all in the x ring at 1000 yds on a windy day. I do like to eat venison tho'.....